The value and repute of a
well-established brand is undisputed. In such a case, while
litigation may go on for long, parties sometimes find viable
solutions in settlements. As witnessed in the case of Xerox
Corporation and Anr. v. Sailash Patel and Others 2008 (37)
PTC 526 (Del.), the Delhi High Court affirmed and validated the
settlement arrived between the two parties, as regards the sale
and distribution of its second hand products.
Xerox Corporation alleged
Sailash Patel and his co-parties, of infringing and conducting
unlawful activities with respect to their trademark
"Xerox". They alleged them of importing second hand
office automation equipment, which were refurbished in India
and sold to sellers, who in turn sold the equipment to
jobbers/photocopiers. They claimed that an exclusive inbuilt
software enabled the functioning of the hardware and that on
switching on the equipment, a green light with a distinctive
"X" logo appeared and that they claimed copyright
with respect to the same artistic work.
Sailash Patel denied that Xerox
Corp. was the proprietor of the trademark Xerox, while denying
that they were pursuing any unlawful activities. They stated
that the importing activities were on an "as is where is
basis" and that the import was legal and valid. They
stated that the goods in question were genuine and that at the
time of importation as well as re-sale, the goods were conveyed
as being second hand and not new. It was also asserted that
having such knowledge, the same were purchased.
The parties to the dispute,
entering into a compromise, decided to affix a disclosure on
each of the pieces sold stating that the same were second hand
and had not been imported from Xerox Corp.; that the same were
not serviced or maintained by Xerox Corp.; that the machine in
no way has been altered vide addition or removal of any parts;
and that the machine was not covered by a guarantee or warranty
from Xerox or its affiliates. They also agreed to display the
same prominently while incorporating it in their publicity
materials. They also agreed that incase any change was made
"Xerox" would be removed from the machine before its
sale. They also agreed that the disclosure would not be
obliterated or removed by the purchasers of the machine.
The High Court took these terms
on record and stated the settlement to be lawful. The suit was
thereby decreed in these terms and disposed off all suits in
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).